search for: fizz

This renables the ability for Ruby 1.8 environments to perform reexecs --- lib/unicorn/http_server.rb | 7 ++++--- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/lib/unicorn/http_server.rb b/lib/unicorn/http_server.rb index 2decd77..9a5795c 100644 --- a/lib/unicorn/http_server.rb +++ b/lib/unicorn/http_server.rb @@ -449,13 +449,14 @@ class Unicorn::HttpServer end

...not a very popular use case as there has been only one new kind added in the last few years. However, in my humble opinion, it would make it easier to add richer information allowing those of us extending LLVM to create better debuggers/debugging experiences. Thanks for your time! -- Sohail Somani Fizz Buzz Inc. Booking schedule: https://sohailsomani.youcanbook.me -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180529/e37bc47c/attachment.html>

+some of the debug info cabal (& Duncan, as an emeritus member, and person who plumbed a lot of the current debug info syntax support in) Visitor seems plausible though I haven't looked at the code in detail to see if it'd work perfectly. On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 7:56 AM Sohail Somani (Fizz Buzz Inc.) via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > [Resending due to accidental markdown rendering - sorry] > > Hi list, > > Let's talk about adding a new type of debug info metadata. Here are the > steps (at minimum - probably incomplete) one needs to take:...

...nfo cabal (& Duncan, as an emeritus member, and person who plumbed a lot of the current debug info syntax support in) > > Visitor seems plausible though I haven't looked at the code in detail to see if it'd work perfectly. > > On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 7:56 AM Sohail Somani (Fizz Buzz Inc.) via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > [Resending due to accidental markdown rendering - sorry] > > Hi list, > > Let's talk about adding a new type of debug info metadata. Here are the steps (at minimum - pr...

Hi list, Is there a standards based reason why the DIFlags enum is set to uint32_t[1]? I am sure my DWARF-std-reading-fu is not up to snuff and so I cannot seem to find it. The reason I ask is that we are running out of space for our own DIFlags and would like to nail this down before deciding on an approach. Thanks! Sohail [1] The code in question:

...Duncan, as an emeritus member, and person who plumbed a lot of the current debug info syntax support in) >> >> Visitor seems plausible though I haven't looked at the code in detail to see if it'd work perfectly. >> >> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 7:56 AM Sohail Somani (Fizz Buzz Inc.) via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >> [Resending due to accidental markdown rendering - sorry] >> >> Hi list, >> >> Let's talk about adding a new type of debug info metadata. Here are the st...

...u/wt/doc/reference/html/structWt_1_1Dbo_1_1dbo__traits.html [2] https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_67_0/libs/serialization/doc/tutorial.html#versioning > >>>> >>>> Thanks for your time! >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Sohail Somani >>>> Fizz Buzz Inc. >>>> Booking schedule: https://sohailsomani.youcanbook.me >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> LLVM Developers mailing list >>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin...

> On May 29, 2018, at 15:33, Sohail Somani (Fizz Buzz Inc.) <sohail at fizzbuzzinc.com> wrote: > > Thanks all for your response. > > On Tue, May 29, 2018, at 5:38 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith wrote: >> >> >>> On May 29, 2018, at 12:55, Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com> wrote: >>> >&g...

This patch adds support for symbol versions. It is based on what libvirt does. The generated syms file looks like: LIBNBD_1.0 { global: nbd_...; nbd_...; local: *; }; In a future stable 1.2 release, new symbols would go into a new section which would look like this: LIBNBD_1.2 { global: nbd_new_symbol; nbd_another_new_symbol; local: *; } LIBNBD_1.0; In my testing the

Regarding flags, I was just thinking that maybe we should invent a new DISubprogramFlags type. DISubprogram already has a few bitfields for subprogram-specific things, Fortran will want 3 more, and there's no reason to fill up the generic DIFlags with more bits that are used in only one class. I agree that the array stuff needs to be designed with an eye to handling how other languages do

...blocking the Asterisk generated SIP Quality messages (the ones which tell you how good or badly reachably a remote SIP server is) Rule 5051: SIP: PROTOS Test Suite INVITE Test Case This filter detects a test case from the PROTOS SIP testing suite. PROTOS test suites are designed to "fizz" popular protocols to discover weaknesses in particular implementation. The PROTOS SIP test suite fuzzes SIP INVITE messages by sending several thousand combinations of illegal, abnormal, and overlong values for a variety of SIP INVITE message parameters. The results of th...

...y not a very popular use case as there has been only one new kind added in the last few years. However, in my humble opinion, it would make it easier to add richer information allowing those of us extending LLVM to create better debuggers/debugging experiences.Thanks for your time! — Sohail Somani Fizz Buzz Inc. Booking schedule: https://sohailsomani.youcanbook.me -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180529/caad40eb/attachment.html>

Dear All, Martin Maechler has asked me to send this to R-devel for discussion after I submitted it as an enhancement request ( https://bugs.r-project.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17563). At this time, the update.formula() method always performs a number of transformations on the results, eliminating redundant variables and reordering interactions to be after the main effects. This is not always

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Greetings, I've just about got Asterisk up and running and am wondering the following. Currently, I subscribe to both Vonage and Broadvoice and as such, I've got a Sipura and Cisco ATA186. Although I'm sure this is expressly prohibited somewhere in my service agreements, can I reprogram these devices to access my own asterisk server rather than

Hi all, I have setup a Dell PowerEdge 2550 with a Sangoma A200 card with 2xFSO and 1XFS modules. The PowerEdge specs are 1 x P3 1133MHz, 512MB RAM. Sangoma A200 has 3 analogue PSTN lines connected. This server is based in Office 1, with 5 users all with a Linksys SPA942 VoIP Handset. There is another Office (Office 2) connected to here using VPN. There are two users in Office 2 with the